How are gasoline prices in Canada quoted?

Dave wrote on Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:37:28 -0400:

?? The US was supposed to convert to Metric along with
?? everyone else back in the late 70s. Like many other
?? international agreements, they backed out of it.
??
?? Typical simplistic, inaccurate anti-American nonsense!
?? Jimmy the Unready did try but, like a lot of his efforts,
?? it failed. The metric system has been *legal* in the US
?? for more than 100 years but conservatism has always
?? prevailed. The only place I've ever seen a US speed limit
?? in km is on the grounds of NIST.

DS Of course it is simplistic. The fact is that the US had
DS planned to go metric along with the rest of the world, but
DS it backed out. It was the Reagan administration that cut
DS the funding for the Metric Board. As for it being anti
DS American, it is typical of American action on the
DS international level. The US has a long list of agreements
DS on which it backed out. Look at the Treaty of Versailles
DS for instance. The US, despite having avoided involvement
DS for most of the conflict, had an inordinate amount of
DS influence on the drafting of the treaty, but then failed to
DS ratify it. More recently it has backed on on a lot of
DS commitments to which it had been a party:

DS Ottawa Treaty (the land-mine ban)
DS Treaty on the Rights of the Child (only holdouts are the
DS U.S. and Somalia)
DS Protocol to enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention
DS (vote was 178-1, the US the only holdout)
DS United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
DS of Discrimination Against Women
DS International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
DS Rights Convention on Biological Diversity
DS International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of
DS All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families
DS Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
DS (POPs) International Convention for the Suppression of
DS Terrorist Bombings International Convention for the
DS Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.
DS Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
DS Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory
DS Limitations to War Crimes Against Humanity
DS Forced Labor Convention
DS Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to
DS Organize Convention
DS Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention
DS Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age to Marriage
DS and Registration of Marriages
DS Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
DS Convention on the International Right of Correction
DS International Criminal Court
DS Kyoto Accords (greenhouse gas reductions)
DS UN Convention on Biological Diversity (regulating genetic
DS engineering) UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
DS Peoples Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty [prohibiting programs
DS like "Stars Wars"] Basel Convention on the Control of
DS Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their
DS Disposal Convention on the Protection and Use of
DS Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes
DS International Convention against the Recruitment, Use,
DS Financing and Training of Mercenaries
DS International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment
DS of the Crime of Apartheid
DS Convention concerning Minimum Age for Admission to
DS Employment Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
DS Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers (prohibiting sale of arms
DS to human rights violators & aggressors)
DS Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
DS Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing
DS of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, and Other
DS Related Materials UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (bans
DS toxic waste dumping, etc.) UN Moon Treaty [declaring the
DS moon part of the Common Heritage of Mankind]
DS Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
DS UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
DS of Genocide Protocol to enforce the Convention Against
DS Torture United Nations Convention against Transnational
DS Organized Crime

It's simplistic because you don't seem to understand the
difference between acceptance and even signature by a US
representative, however highly placed, and ratification of a
treaty by Congress. Even the President is not the US; both he
and I are citizens and refusal to ratify is not backing out.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

James Silverton wrote:


DS Ottawa Treaty (the land-mine ban)


It's simplistic because you don't seem to understand the
difference between acceptance and even signature by a US
representative, however highly placed, and ratification of a
treaty by Congress. Even the President is not the US; both he
and I are citizens and refusal to ratify is not backing out.

In other words, an American signature on an international agreement is
meaningless because of an unwieldy political process which leads to an
agreement not being binding.

Dave Smith wrote:
James Silverton wrote:


Ottawa Treaty (the land-mine ban)


It's simplistic because you don't seem to understand the
difference between acceptance and even signature by a US
representative, however highly placed, and ratification of a
treaty by Congress. Even the President is not the US; both he
and I are citizens and refusal to ratify is not backing out.

In other words, an American signature on an international agreement
is
meaningless because of an unwieldy political process which leads to
an
agreement not being binding.

"He (the President) shall have power, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the
Senators present concur;"

Nothing "unwieldy" about it, either 2/3 of the Senate concurs or they
don't.

In an ideal world, the senate would concur _before_ the signing, in
the real world people like you jumping up and down and having hissy
fits makes that impossible.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...
James Silverton wrote:


DS Ottawa Treaty (the land-mine ban)


It's simplistic because you don't seem to understand the
difference between acceptance and even signature by a US
representative, however highly placed, and ratification of a
treaty by Congress. Even the President is not the US; both he
and I are citizens and refusal to ratify is not backing out.

In other words, an American signature on an international
agreement is
meaningless because of an unwieldy political process which
leads to an
agreement not being binding.


In a democracy, the people rule. In the US we do not appoint a
single person to decide for us. That's rather a definition of
dictatorship.


--
Jim Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

James Silverton wrote:


It's simplistic because you don't seem to understand the
difference between acceptance and even signature by a US
representative, however highly placed, and ratification of a
treaty by Congress. Even the President is not the US; both he
and I are citizens and refusal to ratify is not backing out.

In other words, an American signature on an international
agreement is
meaningless because of an unwieldy political process which
leads to an
agreement not being binding.


In a democracy, the people rule. In the US we do not appoint a
single person to decide for us. That's rather a definition of
dictatorship.

So the result is that you have people appointed to sit in on
international forums, to sign on behalf of your country and then chuck
it out the window when the conference is over. It may be simplistic to
say that the US has a reputation of baking out on the international
agreements that it signs, but that is what happens time and again., from
the Treaty of Versaille up to that list of 37 international agreements
that it signed.

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:26:48 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Graz wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:21:05 GMT, "sharx35"
wrote:


"Graz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:50:26 GMT, "sharx35"
wrote:


"Graz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:37:58 -0400, Mike from Ottawa mev at
tikaCANOE dot ca wrote:

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:46:31 GMT, (Graz)
wrote:

Hi all,
Looking at a website such as www.torontogasprices.com, it's
not
immediately clear how the prices are quoted. Am I right in
thinking that it's Canadian cents/litre? And if so, are
prices
generally cheaper just over the US border?
thanks

It's cents/L. E.g., 105.9 is $1.059 per litre.

Prices have always tended to be cheaper on the US side. Taxes
are gouged at different rates in each province. E.g., Quebec's
fuel taxes are higher than Ontario's. Given the increased
security & huge line-ups to cross the border, it's up to you to
determine if it's worth the wait, or see if you can go across
in
an off-peak time.

It's still cheaper than in Europe, but we're getting closer.

http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_can_gastemperaturemap.aspx shows the
prices around Canada & also in the US.

A US gallon is about 3.8 L.

Thanks all. What I found particularly confusing was several
comparison websites showing US and Canadian prices - one set in
US$ per gallon and the other as stated above.



Don't forget that the U.S. dollar and the Canadian dollar are NOT
exactly the same--CDN dollar is currently trading just over 98
cents US. Also, the U.S. gallon is equal to just UNDER 4 litres
while the CDN gallon is approx.
4.54 litres. To further confuse matters, the U.S. gallon has 128
U.S. ounces while the Canadian gallon has 160 IMPERIAL ounces. In
other words the
U.S. ounce is a tiny amount LARGER than the Imperial ounce, while
the Imperial (CDN) gallon is substantially larger than the U.S.
gallon. Pity!!

I always thought a fluid ounce was a fluid ounce, but it appears
you
are correct: 1 US fluid ounce = 1.041 British (and presumably
Canadian) fluid ounces.


This makes a strong case for having metric....everywhere.

Whatever you do, avoid a mixed system such as the UK has - distances
in miles, gasoline in litres, beer in pints etc etc.

It beats the mixed system Quebec has--tourists in English, stop signs
in French . . .

You mean the stop signs don't say "STOP"?

It beats the mixed system Quebec has--tourists in English, stop signs
in French . . .

You mean the stop signs don't say "STOP"?

"STOP" *is* French -- it's the word used on stop signs in France -- but
stop signs in Quebec use "ARRET", because it is not also English. Or
actually it's "ARRÊT", if you receive the accented letter correctly.
Here's one: http://rubensteinbros.net/Alan-Heidi/photos/arret.jpg
--
Mark Brader | "Perl is a minimalist language at heart.
Toronto | It's just minimalistic about weird things
| compared to your average language." -- Larry Wall

"James Silverton" wrote in message
news:RoBHj.150$zb3.19@trnddc01...
"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...
James Silverton wrote:


DS Ottawa Treaty (the land-mine ban)


It's simplistic because you don't seem to understand the
difference between acceptance and even signature by a US
representative, however highly placed, and ratification of a
treaty by Congress. Even the President is not the US; both he
and I are citizens and refusal to ratify is not backing out.

In other words, an American signature on an international agreement is
meaningless because of an unwieldy political process which leads to an
agreement not being binding.


In a democracy, the people rule. In the US we do not appoint a single
person to decide for us.

So you dont elect the president as head of the executive
arm of government then !

Funny I thought you did.

I also had this strange idea that you selected people to represent
you on the law making and consultative bodies that make up
the US congress rather than having referenda on every issue.

Ah well.

That's rather a definition of dictatorship.


Only if you use the original Roman Republican definition of dictator
who was an official (usually a consul) appointed by the
senate for a fixed period and being vested with supreme
executive powers.

The modern meaning of the word doesnt not require
him to be appointed by anyone but himself.

Keith

On 3/29/08 9:38 PM, in article , "Graz"
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:26:48 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Graz wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:21:05 GMT, "sharx35"
wrote:


"Graz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:50:26 GMT, "sharx35"
wrote:


"Graz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:37:58 -0400, Mike from Ottawa mev at
tikaCANOE dot ca wrote:

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:46:31 GMT, (Graz)
wrote:

Hi all,
Looking at a website such as www.torontogasprices.com, it's
not
immediately clear how the prices are quoted. Am I right in
thinking that it's Canadian cents/litre? And if so, are
prices
generally cheaper just over the US border?
thanks

It's cents/L. E.g., 105.9 is $1.059 per litre.

Prices have always tended to be cheaper on the US side. Taxes
are gouged at different rates in each province. E.g., Quebec's
fuel taxes are higher than Ontario's. Given the increased
security & huge line-ups to cross the border, it's up to you to
determine if it's worth the wait, or see if you can go across
in
an off-peak time.

It's still cheaper than in Europe, but we're getting closer.

http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_can_gastemperaturemap.aspx shows the
prices around Canada & also in the US.

A US gallon is about 3.8 L.

Thanks all. What I found particularly confusing was several
comparison websites showing US and Canadian prices - one set in
US$ per gallon and the other as stated above.



Don't forget that the U.S. dollar and the Canadian dollar are NOT
exactly the same--CDN dollar is currently trading just over 98
cents US. Also, the U.S. gallon is equal to just UNDER 4 litres
while the CDN gallon is approx.
4.54 litres. To further confuse matters, the U.S. gallon has 128
U.S. ounces while the Canadian gallon has 160 IMPERIAL ounces. In
other words the
U.S. ounce is a tiny amount LARGER than the Imperial ounce, while
the Imperial (CDN) gallon is substantially larger than the U.S.
gallon. Pity!!

I always thought a fluid ounce was a fluid ounce, but it appears
you
are correct: 1 US fluid ounce = 1.041 British (and presumably
Canadian) fluid ounces.


This makes a strong case for having metric....everywhere.

Whatever you do, avoid a mixed system such as the UK has - distances
in miles, gasoline in litres, beer in pints etc etc.

It beats the mixed system Quebec has--tourists in English, stop signs
in French . . .

You mean the stop signs don't say "STOP"?


No. They say Arret.

--
Martha Canada

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:50:55 -0400, sechumlib
wrote:

On 2008-03-28 01:33:54 -0400, Mike from Ottawa mev at tikaCANOE dot ca said:

Canada went Metric, but only half-way. We're totally converted in
volume and temperature (Celcius), but length is still mostly in feet
and inches, although highway distances and speeds are in kilometres.
Stupid really, but a reality when we trade a lot with the US, and when
all older homes are non-Metric.

Isn't it nice to have all that trade with a country that's decided if
feet/inches were good enough for Jesus Christ, they're good enough for
it?

If that was true, then the US has to use cubits.